168 comments:

Act II: There is "widespread public outrage" that will convince the Dear Leader (PBUH) to reverse his decision, criticize those who suggested it, and set the stage for the prosecutions to come during Act III.

The dried voices Of the nameless editorialsFrom the LA Times, These are the hollow menThe stuffed menLeaning togetherHeadpieces filled with straw. They are quiet and meaninglessAs wind in dry grassOr rats' feet over broken glass

War is cruelty. So what has moral standing got to do with killing active war time opponents? The LA times wants to ask our enemies, sworn to their God to enslave and kill us, to see how open and tender we have suddenly become towards them in the middle of the war. Yeah that should work fine. So why not go all the way to become tender and disband the cruel American Military so the world can live in peace forever? That is a moral standing that also gets you and your children buried by next year.

"Now, as we try to get to the bottom of what happened during those years...This is a fradulent argument. No one has any trouble knowing what happened during "those" years. What the LA Times wants is a bloody flag to wave.

The media serves its own interests and what it wants is to sell more copy. Anti-war propaganda is the yellow journalism of our time.

What further purpose can be served by releasing more pictures of the misdeeds at Abu Graib? I can't recall hearing anyone calling for the release of photos taken by rapists doing their evil deeds, and for the life of me I really can't see much qualitative difference here. I suppose that the LAT might hope to sell more papers, but what other good would arise?

As I wrote in your previous abuse photo post, why not wait until the conclusion of all military operations in theater to release all of the photos of detainee abuse? That way ALL of the abuse photos, including those from events that have yet to occur, can be displayed. It's win/win, and will save everyone money and free up the courts from having to continually hear the ACLU's cases to free pics up after every single event.

And when the time comes to display the abuse photos, how about making a big special exhibit of them right in the Newseum, America's News Museum?? I think the Newseum could do a rocking exhibit, maybe entitled "Detainee Abuse throughout the Bush/Obama Era", complete with the infamous photos, a few makeshift displays of skinny, raggedly clothed detainee mannequins prostrate and fearful-looking before imposing American Soldier mannequins with grim faces and full combat gear, pointing weapons at the detainee mannequins' heads and stuff.

And of course no newseum exhibit would be complete without numerous enlarged and laminated editorials surrounding the rest of the exhibit, including the brave LA Times editorial screaming for the release of the photos.

It probably wouldn't be as exciting as the current "Hunting Lincoln's Killers" special exhibit currently drawing 75-80 people per day to the Newseum, but hey, it's great history, and maybe the Bush-hating teachers will force, er take their classes there to check out the display. . .

Is there some evidence that prisoner abuse (outside of that alleged during interrogations) has gone unpunished? Or is this merely an attempt to morally flagellate ourselves for the actions of a few ne'erdowells?

Unless, for balance, they wish to show the abuse photos of our enemies, the photos from 9/11, the shots of Muslim Arabs dancing in the Middle East to shots of our falling towers, the decapitation of Danny Pearl. Photos of Saddam's "Children's Prison" then I don't really want to hear about any moral preening from these guys.

This country has already alienated allies and seen its moral standing crumble.

What moral standing are they talking about? Can someone actually point me to the time when the United States was looked upon as some moral beacon by the international community? Was there some point in between of being accused of genocide of the American Indian, enslaving the black race, nuking the Japanese, killing millions of Vietnamese that our halo shone bright? Newsflash for the LA Times, we never held any moral standing with the rest of the world. At best grudging respect during and shortly after WW2 and that was watered down because we didn’t get off our ass and preemptively join the bloodletting until we were actually attacked. And what allies have we alienated? Has NATO folded (God knows it should), ambassadors recalled? Sanctions put into effect? Considering the millions continuing to pour across our borders we don’t seem to be alienating as many as the Times thinks. I tend to think that the only way the left thinks we can regain our moral standing is to self-flagellate ourselves on the world stage. Maybe Obama should have done his apology tour in a horsehair shirt and prostrated himself to more world leaders than the Saudi King.

As a matter of fact, yes. Why would this not be possible? The same as anything else uncomfortable that we do to win a war. Of course, Abu Grab had no function and will enrage without benefit. Except to the LA Times.

I expect that publishing the water boarding of KSM would make them less scared of us and more willing to take up arms as well.

Bonehead.You sit at your keyboard acting superior while men better than you, away from their loved ones and at risk in a way you've probably never experienced in your life, protect your right to type such tripe.

"Aren't there numerous of examples of hideously disturbing photos not released by the federal govt that have similar news value?"

Scare Force Won.

"Can someone actually point me to the time when the United States was looked upon as some moral beacon by the international community?"

Dead on. The idea that other countries look to us for moral guidance and reassurance is pure and utter bullshit. Never have, never will. Put another way, what countries do we do that to? If they thought our way was better they'd mimic it to a tee.

As has been noted before, nations don't have permanent friends, only permanent interests. Our "moral standing" and other such sophomoric (used in the truest sense of the roots of the word) garbage fly right out the window when another country finds it in their interest to oppose us.

You sit at your keyboard acting superior while men better than you, away from their loved ones and at risk in a way you've probably never experienced in your life, protect your right to type such tripe..

Oh fuck off. This has nothing do with soldiers. And believe me when I say wanting to know where I live is the last thing you want to know.

"Washington Times Runs Obama Girls' Photo With Story About Murdered Chicago Kids"

On Wednesday, a story in the Washington Times about murdered Chicago schoolchildren was inexplicably paired with a photo of President Obama's daughters.

The two girls are not mentioned in the story, and aside from having at one point been schoolchildren in Chicago have no conceivable connection to it.

The Obama children, of course, are not actually mentioned in the news story. But somebody at the WashTimes thought it made perfect sense to insert the image of the underage White House occupants into a story about murdered kids in Chicago.

And no, this was not an example of an unfortunate juxtaposition, where the the Obama girls photo was actually part of another, more innocuous story and because of a layout quirk simply appeared near the murdered-kids story. Instead, the Obama girls photo was specifically selected to accompany the article.

I realize the Washington Times is a conservative publication what would possibly think this is decent?

That is an interesting point, the LA times would not reprint the mohammed cartoons for fear of enraging muslim sensibilities but is chomping at the bit to show detention photos. One major point folks on the left refuse to acknowledge is what do we do with future detainee photos? You think this is the last of the bad guys that have been rounded up? Should we just publish all the detainee photos on the web on a weekly basis? Where is the cut off? Forgive some of us for thinking there is another agenda at work.

If someone was actually interested in "getting to the bottom" of the (supposed) destruction of our moral standing and alienated allies, we could start with the press who saw fit to present such things as the abuse at Abu Graib as ours alone.

For a clue... when we arrived at that prison, it had been a prison. During conversion for our use we found a building so soaked in human blood that the US military commander in charge ordered it razed rather than have our soldiers suffer the psychological distress of cleaning it.

For another clue... the treatment of prisoners by the US, as bad as it ever got, did not even begin to compare to the treatment of prisoners by the enemy. And explaining that condemning the enemy for behavior so depraved as to be near incomprehensible is pointless because they have no shame, only shows who doesn't have it.

Yes, true... it might "do some good" to point out the sins of America, because America CARES about its sins...

But to turn around and cry that our moral standing in the world has crumbled and then to have the gall to wonder why?

That is an interesting point, the LA times would not reprint the mohammed cartoons for fear of enraging muslim sensibilities but is chomping at the bit to show detention photos..

It's not so much interesting but flat out telling of where loyalties lie. Display obscene and insulting depictions of Christian icons and they're celebrated as works of art and free expression. Hey, need more cowshit on the Virgin Mary! Christians who are offended are simply told to STFU and deal with it. Show a cartoon of Mohammed and it's denounced as racist, culturally insensitive, deliberately provacative of a 'vulnerable group', how dare you offend a billion people?

My reccomendation is to create a Ken Burns film of the the Iraqi Army leaving Kuwait in February 1991 with highlights of Smart bombs going into the precise Baghdad windows. Then show the scenes of the Trade center Towers jumpers, followed by a narration reminding viewers that 1991 war happened without the 2001 attack happening first. That should restore our moral standing 100% in the enemy eyes, since Moslems have no respect for mercy or forgiveness, but do respect American power. Then we pray that Sweet Ole Barrie does not cry on camera apologising to his sweet ole Moslems.

Following the LogicIf we need to keep evidence of torture, like photographs, secret, to protect our troops, doesn't that suggest that torture isn't a great way to keep them or us safe? ..

Actually that's pretty shitty logic. Try this. We need to keep the information about our aircraft stealth technology secret to protect our pilots from being shot down. That suggests the methods used to protect them should be kept secret.

HoosierDaddy, when did the LA Times print "more cowshit on the Virgin Mary?"

And why should they print those anti-Muslim cartoons? Those cartoons are different than photos of torture.

Do you understand that basic difference? The cartoons were someone's opinion and not someone who worked for the LA Times. You like to insult Muslims and, so, would like to see insulting cartoons published.

But these pictures. They are different. They are the historical record of when the USA descended into the barbaric and sadistic abyss of torture with other lawless or rogue states.

Actually that's pretty shitty logic. Try this. We need to keep the information about our aircraft stealth technology secret to protect our pilots from being shot down. That suggests the methods used to protect them should be kept secret. .

You didn't address Marshall's point at all, except to curse it.

Are you dumb? Or nuts?

Try again. Address the actual point, which is core to the thread topic (which doesn't include Muslim cartoons or Stealth planes).

They are the historical record of when the USA descended into the barbaric and sadistic abyss of torture with other lawless or rogue states.Only if you're ignorant enough to think that prisoner abuse by US personal [military and civies] didn't start until the Bush admin.

Please, we know the Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.

Show us where there was a previous existing US policy to use torture on prisoners.

Show us the historical records of what happened under Cheney/Bush:

- Beatings (many to death)- Hanging people from shackles for long periods (days in some cases). - Near-drowning- Putting people in confined boxes in stress positions for long periods. - Shackling people to the floor so they couldn't move. - Threatening naked people with dogs. (Allowing some to be bitten).- Withholding food and water. - Denying people the ability to sleep for days.

(And let's not forget, these are alleged terrorists, with allegations often coming from people collecting the bounties. Many innocents were tortured by the USA).

AlphaBitch: Show us where there was a previous existing US policy to use torture on prisoners.

"I began exploring the historical continuity, the connections, between the CIA torture research back in the 1950s and Abu Ghraib in 2004. By using the past to interrogate the present, I published a book titled A Question of Torture last January that tracks the trail of an extraordinary historical and institutional continuity through countless pages of declassified documents. The findings are disturbing and bear directly upon the ongoing bitter debate over torture that culminated in the enactment of the Military Commissions law just last October."

"... After codification in its 1963 KUBARK manual, the CIA spent the next thirty years propagating these torture techniques within the US intelligence community and among anti-communist allies across Asia and Latin America"

"...Yet when President William Clinton sent this UN Convention to Congress for ratification in 1994, he included language drafted six years earlier by the Reagan administration—with four detailed diplomatic “reservations” focused on just one word in the convention’s 26-printed pages. That word was “mental.”

Significantly, these intricately-constructed diplomatic reservations re-defined torture, as interpreted by the United States, to exclude sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain—the very techniques the CIA had refined at such great cost."

More at:

http://hnn.us/articles/32497.html

AlphaBitch: Put up or shut up.

You shut up. You don't give a damn about torture, except to use as a poltical weapon against your enemies.

And why should they print those anti-Muslim cartoons? Those cartoons are different than photos of torture.

Do you understand that basic difference? The cartoons were someone's opinion and not someone who worked for the LA Times. .

No you don't understand the difference. Those cartoons became news with the subscribers of the Religion of Peace went on a violent rampage and killing spree because they haven't quite made that social evolution beyond the 11th century.

You like to insult Muslims and, so, would like to see insulting cartoons published. .

And you like to insult Americans and want to see the photos published. Actually I could care less. I really don't care if Muslims are inflamed considering they get inflamed over stupid cartoons. Maybe they could get just as inflamed over their own Muslim bretheren who continually self detonate among them.

You didn't address Marshall's point at all, except to curse it. .

No I provided a counter analogy. It's not my fault you're not smart enough to understand it.

"It's terrible that the president was faced with such an unpalatable choice, but it's just one of the many awful results of the culture of torture and lawlessness put in place by the Bush administration."

The LA Times wants to forget about the culture of terrorism. Even Chris Matthews was talking over a guest from Salon last night reminding her that Presidents need to sometimes make lawless decisions to protect this nation.

Anyways supposedly according to Andrew McCarthy-Obama could end the whole issue by-

Executive Order.-

Their is no need for him to punt the responsibility of the decision to The Supreme Court.

Supposedly they are saying that Obama sees a new argument that could be presented to the Court.

Some are hoping that yet again-[and all we do have left is optimism in the face of this]-that Gibbs is misstating or flubbing what Obama intends to do.

Because again supposedly he can choose to end the whole thing by Executive Order based on previous statements he has issued saying that it is a National Security issue.-I'm not really sure what the technicality is there.

Because again supposedly he can choose to end the whole thing by Executive Order based on previous statements he has issued saying that it is a National Security issue.-I'm not really sure what the technicality is there..

There isn't a technicality. This is just another example of Obama voting present. I'm glad to see the Left with their panties in a twist over this because its about time the scales fall from their eyes and see this fraud for what he is. Oh he's doing a bang up job with his socialist takeover of the auto/financial and soon the health care industry so the AlphaLibs should be able to take some solace in that. Unfortunately for them, I think Obama is less concerned with the potential threats to our troops over this than the exposure it could shed on prominent members of his party who not only knew this kind of shit was going on but were concerned it wasn't enough.

Posner was vague on many points in his post-I think in an effort to get people to buy his book which is entitled something to the effect-

The End Of Capitalism...-

What Alpha Liberal fails to understand is that part of Posner's premise is that Obama has been- The Death Knell for the End of Capitalism.

Now how anyone could say that Capitalism the most successful economic system for a lengthy period of time-is over or a bad idea-well I dont' know how you do that.

But-to celebrate the end of Capitalism as Alpha Liberal does?

Well explain to me how America is or was America without Capitalism?

And again we've defeated a lot of ideologies via Capitalism-there is an argument to be made that the Arms Race put forward by Reagan culminating with SDI is what caused Russia to falter. Essentially the Ivans of Russia who were more inspired by vodka than doing their best for the common good were not putting out very well-economically.

Again immigrants want to come to America for the economic opurtunity-our moral superiority-not so much.

Failing to publish the cartoons was an epic failure of journalism because without showing the cartoons it was impossible to tell the story, to show the facts, or to begin to understand what happened.

First, and most important... the cartoons published in Denmark were not the same ones used to stir up the hatred and strife. They may have violated rules about depicting Mohammad, but they were pretty mild.

They were added to.

The same fellow who got all the Danish flags prepared ahead of time *added* truly offensive pictures to the cartoons. Pictures that had nothing at all to do with the Danish cartoonists.

To understand this, we'd need to actually see what pictures were involved.

The pictures used as evidence in trials (hey, why not consider how our investigations and convictions relates to our "moral standing"... or would reporting on how investigations were already underway and the first photos released *after* soldiers had been arrested ruin the narrative of the press as heroic?) are not necessary to understand the events and sequence of events.

They are really *only* useful to dredge up additional bad will and hard feelings... but that's the goal isn't it?

The cartoons are STILL more important to actual understanding and reporting the why's and how's of riots that lead to the deaths of innocent people.

And modern Republicants are the world cheerleaders for torture and have betrayed the Gipper's legacy.

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

The Republicant Party is the party of torture. Good for us they are out of power.

I said I provided a counter analogy. Seriously, work on the reading comprehension.

It's not the photo that decreases our safety, but the actual act of torturing people. .

Is it? Last time I checked, we haven't been attacked by Muslim terrorists since 9/11. Prior to that we weren't torturing any Muslims and they pretty much kept themselves busy all through the 1990s right up to 9/11/2001 killing Americans and anyone else unfortunate enough to be in the blast radius.

You remember those days don't you? When Islamic terrorism was just a 'nuisance' best handled by law enforcement? Ah the good old days.

For the record, we're not discussing release of "torture" photos. Photographs of interrogations is not in this.

What the photos allegedly are of is Abu Ghraib style prisoner abuse, which was not used to extract information but for the entertainment of a few sicko's. Considering the perpetrators of those actions are convicted and serving time in Leavenworth (something that seems conveniently forgotten when newspapers choose to air our dirty laundry before the world), I don't really see why the US Government should assist in making our soldiers look bad, especially considering how the pictures get taken out of context, with really no balance at all in their depiction compared to our enemies.

Last time I checked, we haven't been attacked by Muslim terrorists since 9/11.So, the US troops in Iraq are not a part of us? I'm not saying all the maimings and deaths are from terrorists, but many were from al Qaeda, attracted to Iraq by the presence of US troops.

So, the US troops in Iraq are not a part of us? I'm not saying all the maimings and deaths are from terrorists, but many were from al Qaeda, attracted to Iraq by the presence of US troops. .

Yeah it's called warzone dumbass. Interestingly enough al Qaeda was doing a far more effective job of killing their fellow Muslims than they were US soldiers.

Not to mention attacks in Spain and elsewhere. .

Huh? You mean Spain was torturing Muslims too? Is that why those guys blew up 300 Spainards? And the Brits too? I mean if torture makes us less safe then that would imply those two nations were also engaging in torture.

Oh wait, but they didn't torture now did they and yet, some subscribers of the Religion of Peace went out and killed a bunch of innocent people anyway. I'm am shocked.

The memos produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel were released to meet a court-approved deadline in a lawsuit against the government in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union. .

From an AP story published here by MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30249847/

I thought it odd that the Obama people didn't play up this point more.

We've also seen reports of campaigns by military officers to affect policy.

Oh when you have time- give me a link for that-intriguing!

And hell I have to agree with much of the rest of your premise.

I don't see how the pressure for Obama to pivot on this point can be coming from Republicans who are the minority in the House and such the minority in the Senate that they are about to lose the ability to even filibuster.

Spain and Britain haven't been attacked in quite some time. And they don't torture. How can that be?.

Well garage, let me bring you up to speed. Alpha and Co. insist that torture doesn't make us safe. As I pointed out, we didn't torture anyone under the benevolent Clinton Administration and the headhackers gleefully went about killing Americans here and abroad right up to 9/11/2001. Britain and Spain didn't torture anyone ever and they still got blown up. That's the argument garage. Torture makes us less safe yet I just proved that non-torture doesn't either.

Maybe it's not so much an issue of torture and simply an issue of Muslims not being able to play well with others. If its not photos of Achmed with panties on his head, it's a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb on his turban. Or a female interrogater rubbing her boobs on some jihadist. Or not wearing gloves when handling the Koran. Or making a movie about Leonidas and the 300.

You can't know that torture. . .oh, sorry, "advanced interrogation" would have prevented the WTC.

It seems like there was a lot of information that the WTC was going to happen but that it was ignored.

NYT May 16 2002"The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack.

"It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad," Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. "The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile."

Nonetheless the revelation by the White House, made in response to a report about the intelligence warning this evening on CBS News, is bound to fuel Congressional demands for a deeper investigation into why American intelligence agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had failed to put together individual pieces of evidence that, in retrospect, now seem to suggest what was coming."

You can't know that torture. . .oh, sorry, "advanced interrogation" would have prevented the WTC. .

Never claimed it would have. Again, like I said to garage, the argument is that torture makes us less safe. I say it doesn't really matter since we weren't torturing anyone prior to 9/11/2001 yet the Islamofascists came after us with a vengeance.

It seems like there was a lot of information that the WTC was going to happen but that it was ignored..

No, there was information that bin Laden was determined to strike the US. That kind of narrows it down to a couple thousand targets.

As for hijacking aircraft, SOP was don't be a hero and do what the nice Muslim fanatics tell you to do. Which is exactly what 3 out of 4 airline passengers did.

As I pointed out, we didn't torture anyone under the benevolent Clinton Administration and the headhackers gleefully went about killing Americans here and abroad right up to 9/11/2001.

No, the benevolent Clinton administration didn't torture anyone, they just handed them over to the not-so-benevolent Egyptians who promised (wink) not to torture. I don't think the Egyptians have released any photos of those sessions...prolly not for the faint of heart.

For some reason that type of casuistry earns us global "moral authority" points while forthrightly doing our own dirty work makes us worthless pariahs.

The LA Times point of view from Ivy-educated head editors Newton and Goldberg, both who were nurtured in the NYTimes system under Reston? Their point of view is wonderfully "first world". It could even be described as 21st century. And as such has absolutely no value or understanding of the threat we face nor of those whom we fight. Pictures have no rebuttal. No context. They are plain and open. The cause passions to run amok. In the "fertile crescent", that results in the death of Americans.

As Elites, they have no sons or daughters at risk of them seeing coming through Dover in caskets - due to their folly. If other sons and daughters of Americans die to "restore" what those Elitists think is THEIR "moral standing" when they are sipping wine in Provence in the summer with like-minded Euro Elites or at parties in the East Hamptons or the Vineyard, skiing at Aspen - what's the problem?

Remember, it was not the actions of 8 renegade hillbillies the US was out to punish for Abu Ghraib that caused US soldier deaths and large recruitment of Jihadis.It was a decision by liberal Jews in control at the NYTimes and in production at the 3 big MSM Networks to run hundreds of stories and re-run pictures and broadcast them to the enemy hundreds and hundreds of times as the "feature story" on broadcasts and the Front page that killed Americans and aided the enemy recruiting.

They did this mainly to bash Bush II, who they hated almost as much as they hated Nixon. But what they did was do their best to deliver the enemy propaganda that Abu Ghraib was absolutely typical of American soldiers and America. They festooned pictures with incorrect depictions - "possibly innocent freedom fighter being electrocuted by America." and so on.

It was right out of the liberal Jew's Vietnam playbook. Demonize American troops as atrocity-committing, sadistic, mindless barbarians.Give the US another defeat like Vietnam to help out the cause of transnational progressivism and international law ruling all peoples..

It just shows how disconnected the media elites are from the people, why the mainstream media is failing as badly as the equally disconnected Republicans dominated by Wall Street Corporatist elites and multimillionaire preachers guaranteeing they can deliver the rubes of the Religious Right to the likes of Tom Delay and Denny Ghastert.

It seems like there was a lot of information that the WTC was going to happen but that it was ignored.

Jen, the example you cite is that we had reason to believe Al Qaeda planned to hijack airliners.

Let's say the information is correct, and we knew with 100% certainty that Al Qaeda was going to hijack airliners (though not what they planned to do with them. What, exactly, could the White House have done to prevent 9/11? Ban Muslims from boarding aircraft in the United States? Institute Israeli-style draconian security procedures?

Please. The Left and the media (but I repeat myself) throw a screaming hissy fit over that stuff NOW, after it has been PROVED that Al Qaeda is willing to hijack airlines and crash them into buildings. How the hell would Bush have gotten away with it *before* 9/11?

You lot live in a fantasy world where terrorism can be prevented without significant violations of human rights. That has never, in all of human history, been possible.

"If the best way to protect Americans from harm was to kill everyone else in the world, our government would be obligated to do so."

Really Rev? Do you really believe that this is true?

"You lot live in a fantasy world where terrorism can be prevented without significant violations of human rights. That has never, in all of human history, been possible."

It has never been possible because violence always ALWAYS begets more violence. Humans are revengeful animals. We want an eye for an eye. And so, the cycle of violence in this world will never end because someone will always want retribution for something.

The only way to stop violence is to be responsible for your own violent tendencies, to not act violently in return for a violent action.

My sister was in the WFC on 9/11. We didn't know if she was alive for a day and a half. What she has shared with me about that day is horrific. You must defend yourself. You have every right to do so. But you cannot exact revenge on a stranger for the actions of another.

It has never been possible because violence always ALWAYS begets more violence. .

Of course it does lassie. It's the natural way of things. Physics tells us that for every reaction there is an opposite reaction. You hit me, I hit you back and there we are. Victims of mathematics.

The only way to stop violence is to be responsible for your own violent tendencies, to not act violently in return for a violent action..

Aye. Those that do that are called victims. Dead ones usually. I on the other hand have found from experience that violence inflicted on me has always ended when the inflicter is lying on the ground covered in his own blood and urine ;-)

It is completely hypothetical, since in fact doing so wouldn't protect Americans. But if it did -- if, say, the rest of the world converted to radical Islam and was intend on our destruction -- then yes.

It has never been possible because violence always ALWAYS begets more violence.

What a load of ignorant nonsense. If violence always begets violence, why aren't the Japanese still at war with us? Why aren't Native Americans regularly staging suicide attacks on white Americans? Why doesn't capital punishment regularly cause the criminals' families to murder judges and juries? Most importantly, why were the biggest acts of genocidal violence perpetrated against peaceful civilians?

A statement like "violence always begets violence" can only be made by a child or an idiot. It is empirically false.

Saddam was convincing the world community that he had the means and the method to wreck mass destruction-he also managed to look like an irrational actor, invading other countries, fomenting assassination attempts and gassing his own minority groups-for instance the Kurds.

"Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword."

And you think that translates to an admonition that violence always begets violence? Get thee to a Bible class, lady.

Jesus was speaking to one of his followers who had just attacked the people who had come to arrest Jesus. It was a warning that fighting back would get them killed -- obviously appropriate, considering they were up against the Roman army. It was not a claim that "violence always begets violence".

Like I pointed out above, it is am empirical fact that the claim "violence always begets violence" is wrong. If you truly believe it then you are deeply ignorant of reality. If you can find people who share your belief then you will succeed only in establishing that you are not alone in your ignorance. But the fact that you're wrong won't change. :)

You do not need religion to be a non-violent human being. You need a sense of decency.

Mostly what you need is to live in a protective bubble, with the bad things kept at bay by non-"decent" folk.

Because let's be realistic. Your silly belief in "non-violence" only lasts until around a tenth of a second after the rapist has your legs spread and his knife at your throat. Then suddenly the knowledge that inflicting violence on him will "always" result in violence being inflicted on you is revealed as the empty-headed horseshit that it is.

The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.

"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.

He termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.

He said the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention.

The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.

Prevention does not mean violent action. You need to understand Buddhism a little better before you try to use that quote to prove that the DL condones violence. Which he doesn't. But I think that is too subtle a discussion for this crowd.

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

This quote says that violence always does more evil than good. While that is *also* an idiotic thing to say -- point to the "permanent evil" caused by the "temporary good" of waging war on the Nazis, for eample -- it does not in fact translate to "violence always begets violence". So it doesn't support your claim.

"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man."

That quote also does nothing to support your claim. Whether or not nonviolence is superior to violence says nothing about whether violence begets violence.

I don't even need to quote the DL.

You're welcome to quote the Dalai Lama. I can't say that I give much weight to the opinions of the deposed religious dictator of a third-world nation.

From all this quoting from the Son of God's teachings applying in today's world first requires a Jewish or a Christian inspired culture in which to work. When faced with the others, you need to start quoting Jesus's most quoted scripture about himself which is Psalm 110.

In addition to my superhuman constitution for copious amounts of alcohol while maintaining the stamina to satisfy the weaker sex, the Good Lord also blessed me with olfactory senses that can smell bullshit further than I can catch a whiff of quim. I say if the lass Jen is not a clone of another commenter that lurks this forum, I'll wager she's at least a conjoined twin.

Ghandi: "The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy..."

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Also, please note that the "sword" quote from Jesus that Jen offered has implicit in it, the fact that Jesus's followers, while He was there with them, went about armed.

It would be wrong to try to claim that Christ promoted violence, but it is also wrong to suggest that He preached a pacifist message.

"And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." Luke 22:36

And what Gandhi was saying, if you read the entire passage, is that violence accomplished no more than non-violence in saving or preserving human life.

47 million dead in WWII20 million from war and famine

Yes. Violence is clearly the answer.

I don't think we clearly understand the precipice we are on here. We have a global economy, we behave as if we are isolated. We talk about what is best for the United States, but when foreign oil went up by 3 bucks a gallon, the cascading financial crisis affected everything from the price of bread to getting to work from the suburbs. It affected all people. Not just the oil men.

Just as war affects not only the people fighting it, but the people trying to live in that world.

Bush followed Dalai Lama's recommendation in launching Operation Iraqi Freedom. From the Lama's remarks following 9-11:

Ultimately, it is important to examine our own motivation and that of our opponent. There are many kinds of violence and nonviolence, but we cannot distinguish them through external factors alone. If our motivation is negative, the action it produces is, in the deepest sense, violent, even though it may appear to be deceptively gentle. Conversely, if our motivation is sincere and positive but the circumstances require harsh behaviour, essentially we are practising nonviolence. No matter what the case may be, I feel that a compassionate concern for the well-being of others - not simply for oneself - is the sole justification for the use of force.

---

So the US was essentially practicing nonviolence, by using minimal force to overthrow a tyrannical and violent regime, thus actually lessening the total amount of violence in the world. See? If the response to terrorism had been one of anger, there would have been nuclear weapons involved, and then you would have had a point.

He said that if children in the kindergarten were to be taught compassion, tolerance and the spirit of accommodation, they would realise that dialogue was the way forward in situations that could otherwise lead to conflict.

-----

Well, yes, that could prevent terrorism, another generation or two down the road, but right now, ahimsa is not effective.

Jen: violence accomplished no more than non-violence in saving or preserving human life.

47 million dead in WWII20 million from war and famine

Yes. Violence is clearly the answer.

Jen, you're leaving out the years of the "soft diplomacy" of appeasment at any price that enabled WW2. And The Czechs had the 4th largest army on the continent - Hitler would have been stopped then, if not for "diplomats" like yourself who threw the Czechs to the wolves in the name of "peace".

And while you're taking remedial history, puruse the interlocking treaties that gave us our first World War.

Need more examples? Diplomat April Gillespie telling Sadddam's henchmen that we did not consider Kuwait to be under our umbrella of protection, greenlighting its invasion by Iraq in diplospeak.

WW2 was fought to the death because a Hungaria Jewish physicist named Szlard had left Germany and come to England, and then quickly on to the USA with the news that a radioactive superbomb coul easily be built from a critical mass of U-235. The race for survival began with the race to beat Germany to finish the Bomb. If we had lost, it is unlikely anyone commenting on this blog, or their family members, (except maybe C-4) would be alive today.

1.Violent action is the solution to violent action, and Newton’s third law (the law of reciprocal action) can be used to prove it.

2.Gandhi was an anti-Semite

3.“ […] “ even when you don’t do it yourself.

4.A 12 gauge pump shotgun is best for home defense.

5.Because the Dalai Lama said that he loves George W. Bush, he condones war.

6.Liberal posters shouldn’t capitalize excessively and conservative posters shouldn’t use excessive punctuationPalladian said. . . “ [ . .] maybe there would be no more violence on the earth at all ever anymore!!!!!1 [sic] “

7.Jesus condoned violent action as well.

8.I am a clone of another commentator or a conjoined twin.

9.Madawaskan really can’t recognize a joke (especially one designed to be self deprecating) which explains a lot about the kidney discussion.

10.All this difference of opinion proves that historical preservation of buildings is very important even if you personally think they are ugly, because clearly there are people who disagree with you about more than just your sense of style.

11.There is a wingnut rugby guy who thinks his phony digital accent gives him liberty to call people “lass”.

There. I think that sums it up rather nicely. Oh, and I am now the proud owner of a Glock17.

You're entirely correct. Far far fewer people would have died if no one had opposed Germany. If Hitler killed every last Jew, every Gypsy, and euthanized every terminally ill or differently born person... still, fewer people would have died.

This is true.

Had no one opposed Japan, far far fewer people would have died. The number of souls lost on Iwo Jima is nearly beyond comprehension.

This is true.

I don't dispute it. It's an objective fact that the butcher bill would be lower if one side or the other refuses to fight.

In places like Darfur or Burma, where one side really can't fight, there would be fewer deaths if the people there didn't even try to oppose those with power. Opposing genocide causes more humans to die and in more painful ways.